Bagwell v. Cash, 17110
| Decision Date | 11 July 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 17110,17110 |
| Citation | 207 Ga. 222,60 S.E.2d 628 |
| Parties | BAGWELL, Commissioner, et al. v. CASH et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
A. R. Kenyon, Kenyon, Kenyon & Gunter, all of Gainesville, for plaintiffs in error.
Stow & Royal, G. Fred Kelley, all of Gainesville, for defendants in error.
W. J. Cash and others, as citizens and taxpayers, brought an action against A. D. Bagwell, Joe Chandler, and R. W. Parks, as Commissioners of Roads and Revenues of Hall County (hereafter called the commissioners), Fred Stringer, J. T. Morrow, and Hoyt Truelove, as Tax Assessors of Hall County (hereafter called the assessors), and Geo. G. Ehrenburg Company of Dallas, Texas (hereafter called the company), alleged to be a nonresident, but with an agent in the county upon whom service of process could be had. In brief, the petitioners alleged: The commissioners and the assessors have entered into a contract with the company, a copy of the contract being attached as an exhibit and made a part of the petition. The commissioners have agreed to pay the company, in specified payments, $33,500 from the treasury of Hall County. Neither the commissioners nor the assessors have authority in law to enter into the contract, and it is illegal, ultra vires, and void. The effect of the contract is to employ the company to seek out unreturned, taxable property, and to reevaluate all property in the county. The time of payment of the contract price is contingent upon other services to be performed by other parties, is indefinite and uncertain, and amounts to an attempt to create a debt against the county in violation of the Constitution, art. 7, sec. 7, par. 1. A tax can not be levied under the Constitution, art. 7, sec. 4, par. 1, to pay for the services provided by the contract. The petitioners prayed that their petition be filed as an action in equity, that the defendants be temporarily and permanently enjoined from carrying into effect the terms of the contract, for process, and for other relief.
Under the terms of the contract, as shown by the copy attached to the petition, the company agrees to furnish the services of experts for the appraisal and valuation of all lots, tracts, and parcels of land in Hall County, together with all improvements located thereon, outside the corporate limits of the City of Gainesville. The report of the company is to include a detailed valuation of all machinery and industrial plants, and all personal property used in the operation of any business. The company is to furnish the assessors with sectional maps, drawn to scale, together with abstract books, showing the separate and individual ownership and valuation of all lands and improvements thereon. It is provided that the company and its employees are not to act as tax assessors, but that all findings and estimates of valuation are to be used by the assessors as they deem best. All final decisions as to valuations and procedures to be followed are to be made by the assessors. The company agrees to furnish competent, expert representatives to testify as to valuations in case of protests filed, and in case of litigation to furnish such expert testimony, on a per diem basis. The company is to be paid in installments the sum of $33,500 out of increased or additional assessments and corrected returns on property for the year 1949, as a result of services rendered by another auditing and tax-consultant firm. It is further provided that, if the contract shall be declared void, no payments made prior to such judgment would be refunded. The company is to furnish a performance bond, the premium to be paid by the county.
The general and special demurrers to the petition were overruled, and the exception is to that judgment.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. Austin
...issues. 1. A constitutional question will not be decided unless it is essential to the resolution of the case. Bagwell v. Cash, 207 Ga. 222, 223(4), 60 S.E.2d 628 (1950). Therefore, our initial focus is on the non-constitutional objections to admission of the a) Appellant contends that OCGA......
-
Harper v. Burgess
...be made upon other grounds. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company v. City of Columbus, 189 Ga. 458, 465, 6 S.E.2d 320; Bagwell v. Cash, 207 Ga. 222(4), 60 S.E.2d 628. And the constitutionality of a statute will not be passed upon by this court unless it clearly and distinctly appears from ......
-
Cross v. State, s. 25389
...the foregoing cases, and to the same effect, Smith v. Ga. Granite Corp., 186 Ga. 634, 639, 198 S.E. 772, 119 A.L.R. 550; Bagwell v. Cash, 207 Ga. 222(4), 60 S.E.2d 628; Routon v. Woodbury Banking Co., 209 Ga. 706, 708, 75 S.E.2d 2. Section 605 of the Federal Communications Act (47 U.S.C.A. ......
-
Forsyth County v. Childers, No. A99A1220
...Clark v. Perino, 235 Ga.App. 444, 448(2), 509 S.E.2d 707 (1998). 3. Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. IX, Sec. I, Par. I. 4. Bagwell v. Cash, 207 Ga. 222, 223(3), 60 S.E.2d 628 (1950). 5. DeKalb County v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 228 Ga. 512, 513(2), 186 S.E.2d 732 (1972); see McCray v. Cobb County, 2......